"Science Talk" on Origins - Why/How a wet planet?

Moon vs. Earth NASA photo (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter)

National Geographic Article


Scientific Method: Observation, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experiment, Conclusion
 

Some problems with the "science" in the National Geographic article:

1. Non-observational "science" - The researchers did not observe the appearance of water on the Earth.
2. Non-experimental "science" - The researchers cannot repeat their ideas with attempts to generate oceans on other planets.
3. Calling research "science", even though it breaks the chain of scientific reasoning.
4. Calling originators of this research "scientists", even though they don't follow the scientific method.
5. Reporting "thought"s, "suspect"s, "may"s, and "suggest"s as good quality science.

Some problems with original Science article: Adam R. Sarafian, Sune G. Nielsen, Horst R. Marschall, Francis M. McCubbin, Brian D. Monteleone, "Early accretion of water in the inner solar system from a carbonaceous chondrite–like source." Science 31 Oct 2014: Vol. 346, Issue 6209, pp. 623-626.

1. "Astronomers know that interstellar water is abundantly available to young planetary systems—our blue planet collected (or accreted) plenty of it." - Logical fallacy here: Hasty Generalization (what other "young planets" besides the solitary example of Earth?)
2.  "Sarafian et al. measured water isotopes in meteorite samples from the asteroid Vesta for clues to the timing of water accretion. Their samples have the same isotopic fingerprint of volatiles as both Earth and carbonaceous chondrites, some of the most primitive meteorites. The findings suggest that Earth received most of its water relatively early from chondrite-like bodies." - Logical fallacy here: False Dilemma (what if the meteorites were generated by the Earth?)
3. "The H, C, and N isotopic similarities between eucrites, Earth, and potentially the Moon allow us to place important limits [emphasis added] on the timing of water delivery to the inner solar system. Earth cannot provide timing [emphasis added] of water delivery because it is currently geologically active. The Moon likely accreted its water at or before ~200 million years after CAIs, or around 4367 Ma (3, 23), but such a constraint is not very rigorous, given that all the planets in the inner solar system are thought to have fully accreted by this time. Eucrites provide a substantially earlier data point, which suggests that the source of Earth’s water was present in the inner solar system very early, ~8 to 20 million years after CAIs (15, 16). This evidence moves back the time at which the terrestrial water reservoir is thought to exist and have been available for accretion. Additionally, this reservoir was present between 1 and 2.4 AU and perhaps throughout the inner solar system. Late-stage addition of water to planets from outer parts of the solar system is therefore unlikely to have affected the water budgets of inner solar system bodies. Thus, the bulk of the highly volatile elements H, C, and N now present in Earth and the asteroid belt most likely arrived from a local source (i.e., carbonaceous chondrite–like material) very early in solar system history. The limited variation in δD over a large range of heliocentric distances (1 to 2.4 AU) supports the notion of a uniform source of water in the inner solar system." - Logical fallacy here: Arguing from Ignorance (there is way too much uncertainty to write a scientific research paper)